4 ms·
Disclosure: us resident. None of those countries seem to be particularly democratic at this time, which means that Amnesty International is doing it's job figh
by zentiggr 6y ago
Disclosure: us resident.
None of those countries seem to be particularly democratic at this time, which means that Amnesty International is doing it's job fighting for people's rights.
That's trouble that human rights organizations should always be in, until the government's stop abusing their own people.
- eli_gottlieb 6y agoHow would you differentiate here between liberal democracy, illiberal democracy, straight-up undemocratic systems, and AI or similar NGOs simply liking the substantive outcomes of a particular government? For instance, I am by no means a fan of the Republican Party, but it's hard to believe that the United States of America was in 2005 a dictatorship or other authoritarian system: we lived through Bush peacefully transferring power to the Obama Administration, which was drawn from the opposite political party. It seems much more plausible that Amnesty simply didn't like how America was conducting the Iraq War, a substantive policy disagreement (and one I agree with Amnesty on). Problem is, that sort of demolishes the case that anyone Amnesty criticizes must, ipso facto, be an undemocratic authoritarian regime -- which I don't even recall Amnesty themselves claiming.
- fnord123 6y agoIn 2005, Amnesty International was criticizing the US offshore prison in Guantanamo Bay where prisoners were being held without charge or trial. I don't think Amnesty International was criticizing the US for being undemocratic even though it uses FPTP and gerrymandered districts.